Animal Cognition

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 571–579 | Cite as

The effect of training and breed group on problem-solving behaviours in dogs

  • Sarah Marshall-Pescini
  • Chiara Frazzi
  • Paola Valsecchi
Original Paper

Abstract

Dogs have become the focus of cognitive studies looking at both their physical and social problem-solving abilities (Bensky et al. in Adv Stud Behav, 45:209–387, 2013), but very little is known about the environmental and inherited factors that may affect these abilities. In the current study, we presented a manipulation task (a puzzle box) and a spatial task (the detour) to 128 dogs belonging to four different breed groups: Herding, Mastiff-like, Working and Retrievers (von Holdt et al. in Nature 464:898–902, 2010). Within each group, we tested highly trained and non-trained dogs. Results showed that trained dogs were faster at obtaining the reward in the detour task. In the manipulation task, trained dogs approached the apparatus sooner in the first familiarization trial, but no effect of breed emerged on this variable. Furthermore, regardless of breed, dogs in the trained group spent proportionally more time interacting with the apparatus and were more likely to succeed in the test trial than dogs in the non-trained group, whereas regardless of training, dogs in the working breed group were more likely to succeed than dogs in the retriever and herding breed groups (but not the mastiff-like group). Finally, trained dogs were less likely to look at a person than non-trained dogs during testing, but dogs in the herding group more likely to do so than dogs in the retriever and working but not the mastiff-like breed groups. Overall, results reveal a strong influence of training experience but less consistent differences between breed groups on different components thought to affect problem solving.

Keywords

Dogs Problem solving Breeds Training Inhibitory control Neophobia Communication 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all the owners and dogs that participated as volunteers and Marianne Heberlein for statistical support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

There are no known conflicts of interest with sponsors.

Ethical statement

This research complies with the current Italian laws on animal welfare and guidelines for research with animals as outlined by the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

Supplementary material

10071_2016_960_MOESM1_ESM.docx (51 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 51 kb)

References

  1. Bensky MK, Gosling SD, Sinn DL (2013) The world from a dog’s point of view: a review and synthesis of dog cognition research. Adv Stud Behav 45:209–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duffy DL, Hsu Y, Serpell JA (2008) Breed differences in canine aggression. Appl Anim Behav Sci 114:441–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frank H, Frank MG (1987) The University of Michigan Canine information processing project (1979–1981). In: Frank H (ed) Man and wolf. Dordrecht, W. J. Publishers, pp 275–292Google Scholar
  4. Gácsi M, McGreevy P, Kara E, Miklósi Á (2009) Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs. Behav Brain Funct 5:31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Gaunet F (2008) How do guide dogs of blind owners and pet dogs of sighted owners (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for food? Anim Cogn 11:475–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaunet F (2009) How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for playing? Anim Cogn 13:311–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall N, Glenn K, Smith D, Wynne C (2015) Performance of Pugs, German Shepherds, and Greyhounds (Canis lupus familiaris) on an Odor-Discrimination Task. J Comp Psychol 129(3):237–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hare B, Rosati A, Kaminski J, Brauer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2009) The domestication hypothesis for dogs’ skills with human communication: a response to Udell et al. (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008). Anim Behav 79(2):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horn L, Huber L, Range F (2013) The importance of the secure base effect for domestic dogs–evidence from a manipulative problem-solving task. PLoS ONE 8(5):e65296CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Hory Y, Kishi H, Murayama MI, Inoue M, Fujita K (2013) Dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) is associated with gazing toward humans in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Open J Anim Sci 3:54–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jakovcevic A, Elgier AM, Mustaca AE, Bentosela M (2010) Breed differences in dogs’ (Canis familiaris) gaze to the human face. Behav Process 84:602–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaulfuß P, Mills DS (2008) Neophilia in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and its implication for studies of dog cognition. Anim Cogn 11:553–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ley JM, Bennett PC, Coleman GJ (2009) A refinement and validation of the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire (MCPQ). Appl Anim Behav Sci 116:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lit L, Schweitzer JB, Oberbauer AM (2010) Characterization of human–dog social interaction using owner report. Behav Process 84:721–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P, Petak I, Accorsi PA, Prato-Previde E (2008) Does training make you smarter? The effects of training on dogs’ performance in a problem solving task. Behav Process 78:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Barnard S, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E (2009) Agility and search and rescue training differently affects pet dogs’ behaviour in socio-cognitive tasks. Behav Process 81:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marshall-Pescini S, Virányi Z, Range F (2015) The effect of domestication on inhibitory control: wolves and dogs compared. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0118469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Merola I, Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S (2012) Social referencing in dog-owner dyads? Anim Cogn 15:175–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Miklósi Á, Polgardi R, Topál J, Csányi V (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog–human communication: an experimental analysis of ‘‘showing’’ behaviour in the dog. Anim Cogn 3:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Gácsi M, Viraányi Z, Csányi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back athumans, but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Osthaus B, Lea SEG, Slater AM (2003) Training influences problem-solving abilities in dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). In: Proceedings of annual meeting of BSAS conference, vol 103Google Scholar
  22. Parker HG, Kim LV, Sutter NB, Carlson S, Lorentzen TD, Malek TB, Johnson GS, DeFrance HB, Ostrander EA, Kruglyak L (2004) Genetic structure of the purebred domestic dog. Science 304:1160–1164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Passalacqua C, Marshall-Pescini S, Barnard S, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E (2011) Breed and age group differences in human-directed gazing behaviour. Anim Behav 82:1043–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pongrácz P, Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Gurobi K, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Social learning in dogs: the effect of a human demonstrator on the performance of dogs in a detour task. Anim Behav 62:1109–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pongrácz P, Miklósi Á, Vida V, Csányi V (2005) The pet dogs ability for learning from a human demonstrator in a detour task is independent from the breed and age. Appl Anim Behav Sci 90:309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Range F, Heucke SL, Gruber C, Konz A, Huber L, Virányi Z (2009) The effect of ostensive cues on dogs’ performance in a manipulative social learning task. Appl Anim Behav Sci 120:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scott JP, Fuller JL (1965) Genetics and social behavior of the dog. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Seksel K, Mazurski EJ, Taylor A (1999) Puppy socialisation programs: short and long term behavioural effects. Appl Anim Behav Sci 62:335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Serpell JA, Hsu Y (2005) Effects of breed, sex, and neuter status on trainability in dogs. Anthrozoös 18:196–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith BP, Litchfield CA (2010) How well do dingoes, Canis dingo, perform on the detour task? Anim Behav 80:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Starling MJ, Branson N, Thomson PC, McGreevy PD (2013) “Boldness” in the domestic dog differs among breeds and breed groups. Behav Process 97:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Svartberg K (2006) Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—historical remnants or recent constructs? Appl Anim Behav Sci 96:293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Svartberg K, Forkman B (2002) Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Appl Anim Behav Sci 79:133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turcsán B, Kubinyi E, Miklósi Á (2011) Trainability and boldness traits differ between dog breed clusters based on conventional breed categories and genetic relatedness. Appl Anim Behav Sci 132:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2008) Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Anim Behav 76:1767–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Udell MAR, Ewald M, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2014) Exploring breed differences in dogs (Canis familiaris): does exaggeration or inhibition of predatory response predict performance on human-guided tasks? Anim Behav 89:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van den Berg SM, Heuven HCM, Van den Berg L, Duffy DL, Serpell JA (2010) Evaluation of the C-BARQ as a measure of stranger-directed aggression in three common dog breeds. Appl Anim Behav Sci 124:136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von Holdt BM, Pollinger JP, Lohmueller KE, Han E, Parker HG, Quignon P, Degenhardt JD, Boyko AR, Earl DA, Auton A, Reynolds A, Bryc K, Brisbin A, Knowles JC, Mosher DS, Spady TC, Elkahloun A, Geffen E, Pilot M, Jedrzejewski W, Greco C, Randi E, Bannasch D, Wilton A, Shearman J, Musiani M, Cargill M, Jones PG, Qian Z, Huang W, Ding Z, Zhang Y, Bustamante CD, Ostrander EA, Novembre J, Wayne RK (2010) Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication. Nature 464:898–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wobber V, Hare B, Koler-Matznick J, Wrangham R, Tomasello M (2009) Breed differences in domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) comprehension of human communicative signals. Interact Stud 10(2):206–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Marshall-Pescini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chiara Frazzi
    • 3
  • Paola Valsecchi
    • 3
  1. 1.Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Medical University of ViennaUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Wolf Science CentreErnstbrunnAustria
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Neuroscienze, Unità di Biologia del ComportamentoUniversità degli Studi di ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations